I'm Not Liking This

I certainly hope the Bishop gets around to answering which usernames he uses online.

Because, his latest actions have instead involved deleting comments from "Public Request for Private Meeting".

After yet another senseless Carol rant, I wrote:

Why the other comments here were deleted, I can not say.

There is nothing wrong with asking the Bishop what other usernames he uses online, Carol.

As I said, this is part of a process to bring he and Farrant closer to meeting. It'd also help erase doubt of anything untoward happening.

In a comment that has been deleted, I asked whether you were actually against steps towards the Bishop and Farrant resolving their dispute. More specifically, the proposed meeting toward the two.

And Bishop Manchester,

I certainly hope you get around to answering the query over which other usernames you use, rather than continue to delete these comments.

This thing isn't gonna get swept aside so easily.

I've saved the page and will be happy to publish screeshots if there's any denial of these comments being made.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the Bishop to answer which usernames he uses online, unless he truly does have something to hide.

David is still adamant that Dennis Crawford (the online version, at least) and Manchester are the same people:

WAKE UP ANTHONY!

Its not the 'same thing' at all, Anthony.

Can't you just grt it thtough your 'undersised head', they ('Dennis' and 'Bonky') are really one and same prson?

When you begn to understand that, you might just begin to understand what I am saying.

But I guess these things take time to register!

But if you can really understand that, there would really be no need for further arguement, and you would have got the whole point.

If only!!

His response irked me enough to write the following:

David,

Stop being an utter twat.

You know very well why I refer to Dennis as a separate entity.

I've repeatedly explained my stance on public evidence, to you.

You can flap your arms scream it till you're blue in the face, but without publicly reproducible evidence, I can't merely state that Dennis is Manchester.

You would know this very well from that letter you showed me, allegedly from the VRS, via e-mail.

As I pointed out in my previous comment:

"The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

"Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person."

Therefore, you will obtain a degree of vindication, won't you?

All it takes, is for you to actually turn up there.

Enough with the petty excuses and distractions.

The rest of this is now in Manchester's court.

I've asked him what other usernames he uses, and, as of this writing, I'm still awaiting a reply.

He quite obviously got the message, as I've been showing on my blog, so we'll have to wait until he actually responds.

He can't hide from it that easily, now.

For the record, I'll say that the Bishop deleting the comments, rather than reply to them, is quite a worrying sign. He's doing himself no favours there.

Obviously, there's a lot of tension behind this whole thing. There's already been attempts to scuttle it, courtesy of the sniping on the sidelines. The waiting game isn't helping. Neither are the stipulations that keep rolling in (I wouldn't be surprised if more crop up).

But, as I said, it's now up to the Bishop. All he has to do is reveal which other usernames he uses in discussing the Highgate Case, and we're practically home free.